LexM/S SHRI SENDHUR AGRO & OIL INDUSTRIES versus KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 714 : 2025 INSC 328 M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 608 of 2024) 06 March 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether a complaint filed u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, can be ordered to be transferred from one court to the other having territorial jurisdiction to try the offence in exercise of powers u/s.406 CrPC on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the complaint is filed; and whether the expression “that for the ends of justice, this Court can transfer any criminal case or appeal to any place” in s.406 CrPC embraces in itself the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court to try the offence u/s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.406 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 142, 142A – Transfer of criminal case by Supreme Court – Petitioner-proprietorship concern defaulted on payment of its EMI’s of overdraft availed from respondent bank – Respondent instituted proceedings in Chandigarh, where it had presented the cheque that was dishonoured – Case of the petitioner that court in Chandigarh has no jurisdiction as the entire transaction took place in Tamil Nadu, and proceedings are initiated solely with an intent to harass the petitioner to travel all the way to Chandigarh only to attend the court proceedings – Petitioner initiated transfer proceedings u/s.406 to transfer the proceedings from Chandigarh to Chennai: Held: No case made out for transfer of the proceedings u/s.406 – For the purpose of transfer of any case or proceedings u/s.406, the case must fall within the ambit of the expression “expedient for the ends of justice” – Mere inconvenience or hardship that the accused may have to face in travelling from Coimbatore to Chandigarh would not fall within the expression “expedient for the ends of justice” – Transfer of cases u/s.406 Cr.P.C. may be allowed when * Author [2025] 3 S.C.R. 715 M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. there is a reasonable apprehension backed by evidence that justice may not be done and mere convenience or inconvenience of the parties may not by itself be sufficient enough to pray for transfer – Court has to appropriately balance the grounds raised in the facts and circumstances of each case and exercise its discretion in a circumspect manner while ordering a transfer u/s.406 – No rigid and inflexible rule or test could be laid down to decide whether or not the power u/s.406 should be exercised – An order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine and more particularly on the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the court to try the offence u/s.138 NI Act – This power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to the trial – When a complainant institutes a case in a court of his choosing and such a court has the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter then the transfer of such case has to be guided by principles that would achieve the ends of justice – Meaning of “ends of justice” essentially refers to justice for all the parties involved in the litigation – It is clear on a reading of s.142(2)(a) and the Explanation thereto that the court of the place where such cheque was presented for collection, will have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint alleging the commission of offence punishable u/s.138 – Word ‘delivered’ used in s.142(2)(a) NI Act has no significance, whereas the expression ‘for collection through an account’ is significant – Delivery of the cheque takes place where the cheque was issued and presentation of the cheque will be through the account of the payee or holder in due course, and the said place is decisive to determine the question of jurisdiction. [Paras 47, 49, 54, 55, 62, 65, 66] Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 142, 142A – Cause of action – Meaning. [Para 56] Case Law Cited Yogesh Upadhaya and Another v. Atlanta Limited [2023] 2 SCR 511 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 170; K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan [1999] Supp. 3 SCR 271 : (1999) 7 SCC 510; Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra [2014] 11 SCR 921 : (2014) 9 SCC 129; Bridgestone India Private Limited v. Inderpal Singh [2015] 14 SCR 153 : (2016) 2 SCC 75;
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.